[_ Old Earth _] Answers in Genesis

[reznwerks]

This is the statement of faith found on the website for Answers in Genesis. Clearly if anyone cannot understand why creationists don't get any respect as scientists this should answer why. They are not scientists looking for the truth. They have the scientific theory backwards. Scientists first come to a hypothesis, test that hypothesis , look at the results and come to a conclusion. The creations on the other hand have already found the answer and are desparately looking for evidence to confirm it. More dishonestly though when they find evidence that contradicts their answer they choose to ignore it and sometimes distort it in order to make their conclusion however wrong still valid and the following statement of faith prove the point.
Statement of Faith
(A) PRIORITIES
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.

The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

(B) BASICS
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.

The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.

The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.

Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to, and as a direct consequence of, man’s sin.

(C) THEOLOGY
The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.

Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.

The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.

Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.

All things necessary for our salvation are set down in Scripture.

Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.

Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in like manner to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.

Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.

Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.

(D) GENERAL
The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:
Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.

The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.

The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.

The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
Does this sound like people really looking for the truth?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... /faith.asp

 

[mh13]

yeah, sounds good to me. They have enough sense to know that the Bible is the infallible word of God. The Bible is our only infallible guide. Therefore if mainstream "science" is reaching conclusions other than what the Bible teaches, then we need to look at the evidence through the lense of infallible scripture.

It's good to know that there are dedicated scientists who uphold the word of God from the very 1st verse

 

[Barbarian]

The Bible is our only infallible guide.

Which one? There are many, and they all are slightly different. Which one is infallible, and why do you think so?

Do you realize how men put what we call the Bible together from various sources?

How is it that the result could be more authoritative than the source?

And on what authority do you believe it?

 

[Sylvester Haze]

The Bible is our only infallible guide. Therefore if mainstream "science" is reaching conclusions other than what the Bible teaches, then we need to look at the evidence through the lense of infallible scripture.

Hardly. That's a prime example of a begged question. Rather, depending on the strength of the conclusion the empirical evidence indicates, we should always be ready to reevaluate the following assumptions:

(1) We're interpreting the Bible correctly;
(2) That part of the Bible is actually correct.

In the case of literalist interpretations of Genesis, which are shown false by science with almost equal force--and with as many independent yet mutually corroborating lines of evidence--as a flat earth, Christians would be wise to do the former. Others often do the latter.

 

[Guest]

yeah, sounds good to me. They have enough sense to know that the Bible is the infallible word of God. The Bible is our only infallible guide. Therefore if mainstream "science" is reaching conclusions other than what the Bible teaches, then we need to look at the evidence through the lense of infallible scripture.

It's good to know that there are dedicated scientists who uphold the word of God from the very 1st verse

:B-fly: BRAVO', BRAVO' !
mhess,keep the truth rollin' and flowin'!!!
"You got it goin' on!"
I agree with you all the way!!!!

Bless the Lord,oh' My soul,and all that is within me,Bless his Holy,Holy,Holy name.

 

[Guest]

The Bible is our only infallible guide. Therefore if mainstream "science" is reaching conclusions other than what the Bible teaches, then we need to look at the evidence through the lense of infallible scripture.

In the case of literalist interpretations of Genesis, which are shown false by science with almost equal force--and with as many independent yet mutually corroborating lines of evidence--as a flat earth, Christians would be wise to do the former. Others often do the latter.

:B-fly: Science has not proven any such thing. Some people try to use
science to hide behind,but they simply cannot keep the charade going forever before they are found out.
Science does admit that it has not figured out everything,and we all know,
how often man makes mistakes.
Far from saying there is no God,more and more people believe there is a
God. All pagan religions,and all religions in general believe there is a God.
So much so,that they are trying to pass laws to protect their rights against
those who cannot tolerate the religious views of others.
So,if most of the world is convinced that God is real,and that he exists,then it really boils down to how you believe in God,not if you believe
in God.
Just because man himself has not yet figured out that the bible is the whole truth and nothing but the truth,doesn't mean they won't,or that the
bible is wrong. How arrogant it is to put ones faith in the teachings of man-kind rather than in the teachings of God.
Those who desire to know the truth will find it,amen.

 

[Guest]

The Bible is our only infallible guide.

Which one? There are many, and they all are slightly different. Which one is infallible, and why do you think so?

Do you realize how men put what we call the Bible together from various sources?

How is it that the result could be more authoritative than the source?

And on what authority do you believe it?

:B-fly: Try this on for size! Read the bible and do what it says and you will find the truth. If you truly want the truth,you will find it when you really desire to know God.
Yes,it really is that simple.
For those who do not desire the truth of God,they will be sent strong delusions so that they may believe the lies they tolerate because they
really do not love the truth.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Blueeyeliner:

Can I ask a question?

How do you know the world isn't flat?

I am just curious how your have come to believe this....remember there are still quite a few people who believe it is flat.

I assume you haven't been in a spaceship to discern the curvature of the earth, or that you have repeated Eratosthenes' expirement, or studied lunar eclipses first hand.

Is it science that you have based this conclusion on? Because the bible was intrepreted by most for thousands of years as saying that the earth is flat. I am just curious why you believe science in this case, if you do believe the earth is a sphere.

 

[mh13]

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

True Christians have always known that the earth was round. It was the apostates in Rome who held to a flat earth idea

 

[ThinkerMan]

Yes, there were alternative believers from Jesus's time to Copernicus, but I don't know if that idea alone qualifies them as "true christians"

The circle is representative of most ancient culture's ideas of the shape of the earth, not to be confused with a sphere. The idea of the earth as a circle was predominate in the Middle east in the time of the OT, and that is evident in the verse you provided.

The crux of my question is at what point science can be trusted, and when it cannot.

 

[Sylvester Haze]

Science has not proven any such thing.

Unless you add the caveat "...beyond a reasonable doubt," yes. Science doesn't deal in absolute proofs. The rest of your post was a bit hard to decipher, but in a nutshell:

Showing creationism is false doesn't show God is (science can't falsify gods that don't have empirical consequences). This is something even our atheist friends can agree on.

That science hasn't figured out everything--which it never claimed to be able to do--or makes mistakes on occasion doesn't mean it can't figure out quite a few things, including that the world is very old and life evolved, with enough supporting evidence and mutually reinforcing conclusions that they're overwhelmingly likely.

Not all religions believe in god(s). The relative commonality of such belief, however, can be explained on psychological grounds alone. Few will dispute that the world can appear to contain intelligent, non-human disembodied forces. We're programmed to see patterns everywhere we look, specifically the patterns of intelligent action, and this causes many a false positive--seeing faces in the shadows, looking for foul play behind even mundane coincidences, attributing unusually good or bad luck to a patron spirit, etc. As any magician will tell you, mere appearances can be deceiving; there need not be anything substantial beneath the surface.

Neither does the commonality of such belief touch one way or the other on its validity. Popular ideas can be wrong, and unpopular ones can be right. That's why the evidence is the important part, rather than often subjective opinion that correlates amazingly well with your geography's prevalent religious views. But that evidence is not as clear-cut as that refuting creationism or establishing evolution; it leaves much more room for intelligent adults to completely disagree on worldviews without either being intellectually dishonest.

Religious freedom laws are a good idea, for all involved. They certainly should extend to non-belief in any and all gods; otherwise, they make a mockery of freedom of conscience.

Oh, and the Bible need not technically be "wrong" for creationism to be false.

 

[mh13]

Yes, there were alternative believers from Jesus's time to Copernicus, but I don't know if that idea alone qualifies them as "true christians"

The circle is representative of most ancient culture's ideas of the shape of the earth, not to be confused with a sphere. The idea of the earth as a circle was predominate in the Middle east in the time of the OT, and that is evident in the verse you provided.

The crux of my question is at what point science can be trusted, and when it cannot.

When "science" conflicts with the clear teaching of scripture we must side with God. Evolution wars against the Bible and the character of God.

You guys act like evolution is a proven fact. It's not a fact, it's not even a good theory. I didn't believe it before I even got saved. My wife who had NO church background didn't believe in evolution either. You don't even have to believe the Bible to know that evolution is ridiculous

 

[ThinkerMan]

Yes, there were alternative believers from Jesus's time to Copernicus, but I don't know if that idea alone qualifies them as "true christians"

The circle is representative of most ancient culture's ideas of the shape of the earth, not to be confused with a sphere. The idea of the earth as a circle was predominate in the Middle east in the time of the OT, and that is evident in the verse you provided.

The crux of my question is at what point science can be trusted, and when it cannot.

When "science" conflicts with the clear teaching of scripture we must side with God. Evolution wars against the Bible and the character of God.

You guys act like evolution is a proven fact. It's not a fact, it's not even a good theory. I didn't believe it before I even got saved. My wife who had NO church background didn't believe in evolution either. You don't even have to believe the Bible to know that evolution is ridiculous

You are not making any arguments against the basis of evolution, so assume you are saying the common sense itself says that evolution is a crock.

What common sense arguments would you make against evolution?

 

[Asimov]

Science does admit that it has not figured out everything,and we all know,
how often man makes mistakes.

Such as in literal interpretations?? A literal interpretation is not God's interpretation. If the natural world contradicts what you believe the Bible says, then it is the interpretation that's wrong.

Far from saying there is no God,more and more people believe there is a
God. All pagan religions,and all religions in general believe there is a God.
So much so,that they are trying to pass laws to protect their rights against
those who cannot tolerate the religious views of others.

Those who cannot tolerate the religious views of others....many religions do this, christianity included. Not even Christians can tolerate other Christians religious views

Just because man himself has not yet figured out that the bible is the whole truth and nothing but the truth,doesn't mean they won't,or that the
bible is wrong. How arrogant it is to put ones faith in the teachings of man-kind rather than in the teachings of God.
Those who desire to know the truth will find it,amen.

How arrogant it is to assume that your interpretation of God's Word is the only right interpretation.

 

[Quath]

You guys act like evolution is a proven fact. It's not a fact, it's not even a good theory. I didn't believe it before I even got saved. My wife who had NO church background didn't believe in evolution either. You don't even have to believe the Bible to know that evolution is ridiculous

It is on the same footing as the theory of gravity. A good theory makes predictions that are unknown and then seeks the answer. A good theory will predict new stuff.

Look at the Bible. What did people who believed the Bible predict? Demons causes diesease; Earth is flat; Earth does not move; and Christians are immune to ingested poisons. Science has bad predictions. However, these theories are discounted after some experiments show they are false. What new scientific information was ever gathered from the Bible that was not known to the people of the time?

Quath

 

[Asimov]

You guys act like evolution is a proven fact. It's not a fact, it's not even a good theory. I didn't believe it before I even got saved. My wife who had NO church background didn't believe in evolution either. You don't even have to believe the Bible to know that evolution is ridiculous

Part of evolution is fact, part of it is theory. Just like gavity, as quath pointed out. And it is a very good theory, as many people including creationists are unable to show that it is indeed wrong. If you don't think it is a good theory, why don't you point out what parts of it are wrong, and then we'll go from there.

I'm sorry to hear that you are unable to see that evolution itself does not contradict God. I'm also sorry to see that your wife doesn't either. Evolution does not equal atheism.

 

[Quath]

Evolution does not equal atheism.

About 2 months ago I get a call from a guy looking for nuclear cross section information (a measure of the probability of a nuclear interaction). Since we provide nuclear data, I showed him our web site to see a graphical display of the data.

He explains that he is debating on web sites and looking for information to show the world is old. I tell him that I understand that I also debate young earth creationists. Then he says something like "YECs are making Christianity look bad because they use pseudo science. This turns away people who understand science and think Christianity is just a bunch of bad beliefs."

I was a little shocked because I just assumed this guy was an atheist or agnostic. I was also embarassed that I was shocked because I try not to sterotype Christians as anti-science.

However, the guy had a good point. YEC does scare some people off Christianity. I think Bill Marr said something like "Half the people want to run the country with the philosophy of science and the other half want to cut up a chicken and read its entrails."

Quath

 

[mh13]

Yes, there were alternative believers from Jesus's time to Copernicus, but I don't know if that idea alone qualifies them as "true christians"

The circle is representative of most ancient culture's ideas of the shape of the earth, not to be confused with a sphere. The idea of the earth as a circle was predominate in the Middle east in the time of the OT, and that is evident in the verse you provided.

The crux of my question is at what point science can be trusted, and when it cannot.

When "science" conflicts with the clear teaching of scripture we must side with God. Evolution wars against the Bible and the character of God.

You guys act like evolution is a proven fact. It's not a fact, it's not even a good theory. I didn't believe it before I even got saved. My wife who had NO church background didn't believe in evolution either. You don't even have to believe the Bible to know that evolution is ridiculous

You are not making any arguments against the basis of evolution, so assume you are saying the common sense itself says that evolution is a crock.

What common sense arguments would you make against evolution?

Yes I believe common sense argues against evolution. Humans and apes having a common ancestors rails against common sense!!! All of life evolving from chemicals in an organic soup is not even a good theory. THINK IT THROUGH! As an unregenerate sinner i didn't buy that crap.
I was never even sold on the age of the earth and dating methods. The predictions on the earth's age are based upon assumptions in the UNOBSERVED past. I never really took a position on the earth's age, but was always skeptical. "Now just how do they REALLY know how old...." was a typical phrase to come out of my mouth.
I didn't buy any of this junk LONG before I even knew of the Bible's clear teaching on YEC.

 

[Asimov]

Yes I believe common sense argues against evolution. Humans and apes having a common ancestors rails against common sense!!!

??? How???

All of life evolving from chemicals in an organic soup is not even a good theory. THINK IT THROUGH! As an unregenerate sinner i didn't buy that crap.

It has nothign to do with sinning. Shouldn't at least have an elementary grasp on the theory of evolution before spouting nonsense like this? Evolution and Abiogenesis are not the same thing! They are not the same fields, and do not depend on each other!!

I was never even sold on the age of the earth and dating methods. The predictions on the earth's age are based upon assumptions in the UNOBSERVED past.

They are based on an assumption that isotopes had the same half-lives billions of years ago, as they do now. Something which is very important. However, your entire belief system is based on assumptions, why should this make a difference??

I didn't buy any of this junk LONG before I even knew of the Bible's clear teaching on YEC.

Clearly you did buy into junk.

 

[Quath]

Yes I believe common sense argues against evolution. Humans and apes having a common ancestors rails against common sense!!!

Can you see similarities between humans and chimps? Why are we not more different? I am not talking just physically, but also on the protien level. For example, hemoglobin is functionally the same in most animals. So why would chimp and human hemoglobin be more similar to each other than a human to a fish?

I was never even sold on the age of the earth and dating methods. The predictions on the earth's age are based upon assumptions in the UNOBSERVED past.

Dinosaur bones come from the unobserved past, but the follils give information to that past. So we can use fossile information to understand stuff we never witnessed. Science has other types of fossils it has found.

One is the microwave background radiation predicted by the Big Bang. Not only does the background radiation confirm a Big Bang prediction, it shows structure from the early universe and also shows that spacetime is flat.

In addition there is radioactivity. We have a great understanding of it. We predict that Uranium 235 and 238 should have been created in equal amounts when a star went supernova. If you do the math you find that they were in equal amounts billions of years ago. You can do this with other radionuclides and arrive at similar times.

There is very solid science behind old age of universe and evolution.

Quath